Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rainbow walking · 04-26-2002, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by not a theist:

Well, that's my take on it too, so my playing devil's advocate is over.

Nice to see you back!

Thanx nota,
I would also add that if this were the case then why shouldn't many more christians renounce their faith in order to save those un-named others seeing how evangelism at any cost seems to be the main purpose of the church. However, now that I think about it, God has already (as Koy puts it), trifurcated into three distinct individuals and had himself nailed to a cross to accomplish just this purpose so how could I possibly compete with that?

sighhswolf · 04-27-2002, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
There appears to me to be a distinct conflict of interest between several specific attributes of the christian God. The conflict is most notable between the attribute of omniscience and omnibenevolence.

If God is omniscient and thus knows every choice I'll ever make in my lifetime by simply moving ahead on the timeline and observing me in action then why did he create me to begin with?

For instance he must have foreseen that I would reject my faith and walk away from christianity. Now since this, according to christian theology, equates to me being destined for hell and eternal torment, and since God obviously foreknew this outcome, how can he still claim the distinction of being omnibenevolent by creating me anyway knowing I would end up in hell?

Was I created as fodder for the furnace? Would a genuine omnibenevolent being create a creature in his image for such a purpose?

Obviously somethings amiss here. Anyone care to enlighten me?

RW,
Your post raises a question that has long been two
stepped around by christianity.
The concept of the christian god is/was presented
as the all powerful creator of the universe.
Christians wanted their god to be limitless in scope, above and outside of time and space.
They want a god who resides in a reality outside of the one in which we exist.
Yet they also want a god that is accessible and understandable a personal guide and mentor, with whom they can communicate through worship and prayer.
They assign to this god attributes that serve to help them understand this divine being and identify it's nature.
But a conflict arises that is hard to reconcile.
The moment they assign attributes to this being, the moment they define the nature of this being,
they limit and restrict the capacities and capablities to a known set of operating parameters, and in effect destroy the image of an all powerful being that is limitless in scope.
Some early christian theologians refused to say that this god exists at all, because to do so would limit this being to the known natural laws of the universe that he himself has created.
They therefore adopt the position of "Religious Agnosticism", and claim that this being is fundamentally "unknowable" by mankind.
Man cannot and never will understand the true nature and ways of god.
Now it would seem that no one could say that something exists, without identifying what it is.
If I claim that god is unknowable, it presupposes
that I have some knowledge of this being and his existence...... and would therefore disqualify it as being unknowable.
The theologian tries to explain the concept of god by pointing out that it/he is unexplainable.
That logic sidesteps reason.
Everyone knows all these arguments and that out of these arguments arises the concepts of "unlimited attributes" omnipotence, omniscience
omnipresent, and all the "omni's" you can name.
But all these points aside, the omnibenevolent factor of which you speak cannot be so.
This god is not omnibenevolent and has not been so presented, in Biblical text.
This divine being is presented as jealous, wrathful, deceptive, and devious.
It has manipulated it's creations, visited all manner of attrocities, and caused copious amounts of suffering on it's followers.
"Omnibenevolent"?
No one can read the Biblical texts and still claim that this supreme being is omnibenevolent.
If they do they are inserting their personal opinions into the text, because that particular attribute is difficult to assign as being a primary character trait of this divine creator based on biblical texts.
Worship me and adore me and be obedient to me, or die and reside in the dark recesses of torment for eternity seperated from all goodness and light.
This is free will?
This is benevolence?
This is a being who states in Biblical text that he who sacrificeth unto any god save unto the lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

This is the very same god who says, " For a fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below.
It will devour the earth and it's harvest and set fire the foundations of the mountains".

One of the most telling verses in biblical text
gives a look at the so-called benevolence and "omni" traits that have been assigned to god by his earthly representatives.
He supposedly creates angels for one purpose to serve and exhault him.
Yet he seems to have made an error in the creation of those heavenly hosts that lead to an exodus of said heavenly hosts out of heaven and perfection and into the human world.
Angels created by him to serve him and him alone.
Heavenly hosts who were residing in the perfection of his "love" in the perfection of the heavenly abode.
His reaction to the defection of heavenly hosts to the realm of humanity resulted in punishment.
"And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority, but abandoned their own home, these he has kept in darkness bound with everlasting chains for Judgement on the great day."
If this god is so all-powerful, why is it that he could not even keep his own heavenly hosts who were created for only one purpose, his service, from defecting to the human realm?
Perfection doesnt seem to be his mode of operation, it would seem to be more trial and error than divine planning.
I have strayed though, from the issue of omnibenevolence. There seems to be no precedent for this trait. Biblical text shows thorough retributions for transgressions, and in my own mind that is not benevolence.
One of the reasons this supreme being cannot be labeled benevolent has to do with his management of humanity through intimidation and third party
communication.
God says do this, god says do that, I have been sent by god to tell you all that you have displeased him......on and on.
It would seem to be more advantagous if he were to inform those with whom he has a problem, himself as opposed to sending representatives.
If the boss wants me to do something let him tell me that himself instead of sending "word".
How do I know that is really what he wants and expects?
Too many contradictions, and far to much retribution and punishment for the label of omnibenevolent.
Wolf

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: sighhswolf ]

Theli · 04-27-2002, 06:40 AM

Welcome back Rainbow Walking, I didn't expect to see you back so spoon.
How is your newfound atheism working out?

Quote:

If God is omniscient and thus knows every choice I'll ever make in my lifetime by simply moving ahead on the timeline and observing me in action then why did he create me to begin with?
For instance he must have foreseen that I would reject my faith and walk away from christianity.

There's another problem with omnipotence aswell. When did you make the choice to become an atheist?
If god could see that action made by you proir to your birth, your choice had already been made before you were even born. And then I wonder, when was that choice made?
And how? If you didn't even exist when the choice of you leaving christianity was made, then what influenced it? It couldn't have been influenced by any prior events since no events were prior to it.

Omniscience brings so many problems with it that it's virtually impossible.

rainbow walking · 04-27-2002, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sighhswolf:


RW,
Your post raises a question that has long been two
stepped around by christianity.
The concept of the christian god is/was presented
as the all powerful creator of the universe.
Christians wanted their god to be limitless in scope, above and outside of time and space.
They want a god who resides in a reality outside of the one in which we exist.
Yet they also want a god that is accessible and understandable a personal guide and mentor, with whom they can communicate through worship and prayer.
They assign to this god attributes that serve to help them understand this divine being and identify it's nature.
But a conflict arises that is hard to reconcile.
The moment they assign attributes to this being, the moment they define the nature of this being,
they limit and restrict the capacities and capablities to a known set of operating parameters, and in effect destroy the image of an all powerful being that is limitless in scope.
Some early christian theologians refused to say that this god exists at all, because to do so would limit this being to the known natural laws of the universe that he himself has created.
They therefore adopt the position of "Religious Agnosticism", and claim that this being is fundamentally "unknowable" by mankind.
Man cannot and never will understand the true nature and ways of god.
Now it would seem that no one could say that something exists, without identifying what it is.
If I claim that god is unknowable, it presupposes
that I have some knowledge of this being and his existence...... and would therefore disqualify it as being unknowable.
The theologian tries to explain the concept of god by pointing out that it/he is unexplainable.
That logic sidesteps reason.
Everyone knows all these arguments and that out of these arguments arises the concepts of "unlimited attributes" omnipotence, omniscience
omnipresent, and all the "omni's" you can name.
But all these points aside, the omnibenevolent factor of which you speak cannot be so.
This god is not omnibenevolent and has not been so presented, in Biblical text.
This divine being is presented as jealous, wrathful, deceptive, and devious.
It has manipulated it's creations, visited all manner of attrocities, and caused copious amounts of suffering on it's followers.
"Omnibenevolent"?
No one can read the Biblical texts and still claim that this supreme being is omnibenevolent.
If they do they are inserting their personal opinions into the text, because that particular attribute is difficult to assign as being a primary character trait of this divine creator based on biblical texts.
Worship me and adore me and be obedient to me, or die and reside in the dark recesses of torment for eternity seperated from all goodness and light.
This is free will?
This is benevolence?
This is a being who states in Biblical text that he who sacrificeth unto any god save unto the lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

This is the very same god who says, " For a fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below.
It will devour the earth and it's harvest and set fire the foundations of the mountains".

One of the most telling verses in biblical text
gives a look at the so-called benevolence and "omni" traits that have been assigned to god by his earthly representatives.
He supposedly creates angels for one purpose to serve and exhault him.
Yet he seems to have made an error in the creation of those heavenly hosts that lead to an exodus of said heavenly hosts out of heaven and perfection and into the human world.
Angels created by him to serve him and him alone.
Heavenly hosts who were residing in the perfection of his "love" in the perfection of the heavenly abode.
His reaction to the defection of heavenly hosts to the realm of humanity resulted in punishment.
"And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority, but abandoned their own home, these he has kept in darkness bound with everlasting chains for Judgement on the great day."
If this god is so all-powerful, why is it that he could not even keep his own heavenly hosts who were created for only one purpose, his service, from defecting to the human realm?
Perfection doesnt seem to be his mode of operation, it would seem to be more trial and error than divine planning.
I have strayed though, from the issue of omnibenevolence. There seems to be no precedent for this trait. Biblical text shows thorough retributions for transgressions, and in my own mind that is not benevolence.
One of the reasons this supreme being cannot be labeled benevolent has to do with his management of humanity through intimidation and third party
communication.
God says do this, god says do that, I have been sent by god to tell you all that you have displeased him......on and on.
It would seem to be more advantagous if he were to inform those with whom he has a problem, himself as opposed to sending representatives.
If the boss wants me to do something let him tell me that himself instead of sending "word".
How do I know that is really what he wants and expects?
Too many contradictions, and far to much retribution and punishment for the label of omnibenevolent.
Wolf

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: sighhswolf ]

Very good points my friend, very good points indeed. The silence is deafening.

rainbow walking · 04-27-2002, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
Welcome back Rainbow Walking, I didn't expect to see you back so spoon.
How is your newfound atheism working out?

There's another problem with omnipotence aswell. When did you make the choice to become an atheist?
If god could see that action made by you proir to your birth, your choice had already been made before you were even born. And then I wonder, when was that choice made?
And how? If you didn't even exist when the choice of you leaving christianity was made, then what influenced it? It couldn't have been influenced by any prior events since no events were prior to it.

Omniscience brings so many problems with it that it's virtually impossible.

And why is free choice more important than the eternal outcome of my soul? Hi Theli.

Joe Nobody · 04-28-2002, 12:06 AM

Anyone here ever read up on open view theism?

Joe Nobody

Metacrock · 04-28-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
There appears to me to be a distinct conflict of interest between several specific attributes of the christian God. The conflict is most notable between the attribute of omniscience and omnibenevolence.

If God is omniscient and thus knows every choice I'll ever make in my lifetime by simply moving ahead on the timeline and observing me in action then why did he create me to begin with?

For instance he must have foreseen that I would reject my faith and walk away from christianity. Now since this, according to christian theology, equates to me being destined for hell and eternal torment, and since God obviously foreknew this outcome, how can he still claim the distinction of being omnibenevolent by creating me anyway knowing I would end up in hell?

Was I created as fodder for the furnace? Would a genuine omnibenevolent being create a creature in his image for such a purpose?

Obviously somethings amiss here. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Meta =>That's like trying to emotionally blackmail God. I can never have a crisis or faith or stubornly insist upon my own way, and if I do, it's God's fault for creating me. How would you have answered that when you were a Christian?

BTW RW, please come to by boards too. I think you would be a valuable contributor and that we can have a better discussion there.

<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

Metacrock · 04-28-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Was I created as fodder for the furnace? Would a genuine omnibenevolent being create a creature in his image for such a purpose?

Obviously somethings amiss here. Anyone care to enlighten me?[/QB]

Meta =>Why do you believe in hell? It's hardly mentioned in the OT, it comes from Hellenistic sources, and it is only mentioned by Jesus in parables and hardly anything about it directly stated in any other part of the NT. It's in the apocalyptic "Revelation" but that is clearlly symbolic.

Why believe in a literal hell?

<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

Metacrock · 04-28-2002, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Indifference:
Well, I agree with you completely.

But a theist refute might sound something like this...

God does have omniscience but... he also gives us free will. Free will, i guess, can account for why you chose to reject Him, therefore releaving Him of any accountability for your eternity in hell.

Not that this makes much sense, but i've heard someone explain it this way before.

Meta ->Why doesn't it make sense? First of all, that's still just making God responsible for your actions, even though you control your actions. To then say "well he shouldn't let anyone be born who has a bad life" is just to say he should cheat everyone out of his/her chance to attempt the challenges of life and the possiblity of having a good life.

It also assumes that hell is literal, which is isn't.

At that point I supposse there has to be some kind of utilitarian streak in God's plan. Because if the balance is in favor of taking the risk of creation in spite of known consequences, than its matter of the greatest good vs. the "colladeral damage." (No offense RW I don't think of you as "colladerial damage).

So it's a matter of the good that is accomplished outweighing the ill effects of those who choose not to cooporate.

<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

Metacrock · 04-28-2002, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:


Yes, I know the freewill aspect holds me accountable for my decision, however, God's omniscient attribute would have provided him with this knowledge before he created me so the final blame rests squarely in his court for creating a creature he already knew would reject him which casts a serious shadow over any claim of omnibenevolence.

Meta =>No it doesn't.

1) Free will is the major priority, it has to be to have a moral universe. Since moral universe is the goal, then free will is must.

2) It's not that free will is used here in an argument to say that "you have all the responsibilty so anything God did doesn't matter." It's really saying "this is a reason why things have to be this way, why God has to create creatures which he knows will not choose him, because he has to create free will creatures."

3) To not create a creature because it will make the wrong choices is to "queer the deal" before it even takes off. That's like saying there are no real choices, because there will only be those creatures who make right choices.

4) It might also be a question as to wheather God knows concete actualities or all contingent possiblities.

5) The only other option would be to not create at all. Now if what is accomplished in creation is more important than anything else, then the risk that some creatures choose wrongly just has to be part of the deal, colladeral damage.

6) Don't choose wrongly.

<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-28-2002, 12:06 AM	#16
Joe Nobody Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Nowhere Posts: 56	Anyone here ever read up on open view theism? Joe Nobody

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.